- This topic is empty.
Nikon DSLR’s @ iso 3200 ?
-
Hi,
I’m wondering for owners of the latest batch of Nikon DSLR’s, how you find the high iso performance iso 3200.
It looks like I will have an indoor event shooting gig coming up later this year, which I would like to shoot without flash, which may lead to iso 3200 being required in conjunction with a fast wide’ish prime.
The D700 would seem to be just the ticket, but not sure whether the budget will be there for that, so instead am turning my eye towards the D7000 or D300 bodies, near the top of the APS-sensor pyramid.
My experience to date has been with the D80/ D200, where bumping the iso past 400 was noticeable. I know the D300/ D7000 are probably very good up to 1600, but wonder how they fare at 3200 ?
Thanks in advance
Hi Damien,
Having purchased a D7000 last week, I’m still getting to grips with it.
I just did a quick test for you though at iso3200 in relatively low lighting (living room with dimmer light down low), using the AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8D.
Settings were 1/20 shutter with f/5, white balance-incandescent and it came out relatively clearly, a bit of noise, but nothing that would render the image unusable! If you’re shooting at a gig, where there will be various light variations, I believe it would be very acceptable. I’m going to a gig tomorrow, and would love to test this theory but apparently no photography is allowed and I’d be a bit scared of bringing my new kit at the moment anyway.I’m no professional and upgraded from a Nikon D40x so I think maybe I’m just still overwhelmed by how incredible the D7000 is compared to that!?
Hope that is of some help…
AHi Ali,
Cheers for having a look. I wonder where the degradation point is with the iso range.
I remember on my D50, everything up to 1600 looked fine and would not have had a problem using a 1600 iso image for any purposes. With the D200 & later D80 (same sensor) I subsequently shot, noise was quite noticeable at 1600, and upon further inspection, it was after iso 400 when the slide began, with iso 800 not being as great looking, and iso 1600 requiring definite and attentive noise reduction.
With the event I may be shooting (a corporate-style event), shooting at a ‘useable’ iso won’t be good enough, and I need a quite decent iso 3200 with relatively minimal noise reduction, while still holding good detail untouched by any noise reduction. This leads me to the D300/ D7000, or perhaps even the D90 which seems to match or even pip the D300 a little in the high iso stakes.
Any thoughts or advice welcome, although just to clarify, this will be an available light shoot, so no flash advice please :)
Hi Damien
I wouldn’t even attempt to use ISO3200 and expect it to be half decent on anything other than a D3s to be honest. I use a Canon 1DMkiii and at that ISO3200 is sketchy enough. The cropped cameras generally have very poor high ISO.
If you can’t/don’t want to use bounced flash then I’d hire a D3s for the day. But don’t be afraid to use bounced flash – If you do it right you wouldn’t even know you were using it.
Hi Ballyman,
Thanks for the feedback, I’m really exploring possibilities at the moment. A D700/D3(s) would be ideal on the high iso front alright, but keen to find out how far crop sensors have come on too. Images will be for web, and promotional usage (brochures, etc), so am not overly concerned with needing large prints from the images.
Bounced flash is the other alternative really, as you mention, and I like the results. For this gig though, flash will be a hindrance and a detriment in capturing the images I have in mind, so ixnay on the bounced flash on this occasion.
What do you shoot with yourself, do you use any of the Nikon dslr’s ?
I use a 1DMkiii and I would never use iso3200 on it. Well when I say never I really mean very rarely! :) It’s fine for newspapers as you can’t really notice the noise on that and the picture is more important than noise but I’ve printed parts of wedding albums at iso 2500 and that is noticeable especially when printed big. LR3 does an excellent job of cleaning it up but you would know it was cleaned up. Non photographers probably wouldn’t notice it but it would bug me.
In your case, the web images will be fine at high iso as the images will be small. Make sure you overexpose a little also as underexposing at high iso is a disaster when you correct it in PP but you will want clean sharp images for a brochure as it will be noticeable on glossy paper, depending on print size.
Yes, hear what you’re saying. Must do some web trawling for samples, and perhaps also consider if I can make do with iso 1600 which would be a far better proposition, with regard to the current crop sensor cameras out there..
Revisiting an old thread here, but this has been on my mind again of late, besides the fact I’ve an gig indoors to shoot, and my preference is to do it with the available light, as opposed to using flash.
Downloading the full-size imaging-resource files from a number of Nikon bodies, and scrutising the shots in lightroom, to see how the various bodies coped at higher iso’s, I discerned the following ranking system by my eye:
D80 – very good noise performance up to 400, minimal’ish at 800, noticeable at 1600 (but useable)
D200 – very good noise performance up to 400, minimal’ish at 800, noticeable at 1600 (but useable)
D90 – very good noise performance up to 800, minimal at 1600, noticeable at 3200
D300 – very good noise performance up to 800, minimal at 1600, useable at 3200
D7000 – very good noise performance up to 800, minimal at 1600, useable at 3200
D700 – very good noise performance excellent up to 800, minimal at 1600 & 3200, useable at 6400
X100 – very good noise performance up to 1600, minimal at 3200, useable at 6400Obviously, this is all by my own standards, and you can always download the still-life studio shots from imaging-resource to do your own comparisons, by the following surprised me:
– no noticeable difference with noise between the D300 & D7000
– the excellent noise performance of the X100, which although displaying stronger noise reduction, was the only one of the APS-sensor cams to come near the D700In any case, I’ve answered my own question, and have decided a previously-loved D300 is the best all round option for my own needs, seeing as the budget doesn’t stretch to a D700 (and the resultant need for new lenses), nor the X100, as I can’t afford to sink that much into a fixed lens camera at this point.
In closing, should anyone have a D300 or a 17-55 they’re looking to part with, you know where to reach me..
EDIT: it’s worth noting, all the above files I downloaded to evaluate the above, already had obvious noise reduction applied, so the above findings are all about how high iso files from the above cameras clean up, and how useable the end result is.
Lol, no worries – where there’s a will there’s a way! :)
The ideal option would be to just buy a D700/ D3, but absenting the budget for that.. :)
If you are shooting at close quarters (4-10′-ish) as opposed to shooting on a stage, then a small LED panel like [url]this MINIMA http://www.barkerphotographic.ie/products.php?id=1372″ onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;[/url] may be the answer. The panel has six different colour temperatures so you can match the light to the ambient room light. You will probably still need a high ISO, but what it does, is fill the shadows and in particular, lift the eyes of your subjects.
Ps: if you can stretch to the D700, do, it is stunning in low light and has a really solid build.Hi Paddy,
As a low light shooter, the D700 really is stunning, and I believe the D3S even managed to improve on that fantastic high iso performace a little. The greater expense and requirement to upgrade lenses however rules it out for me now, but in the future if anything changes, a D700 would be a nice complement to the D300 I intend to pick up.
Good idea re: the LCD panels. I’ve been keeping an eye on these ever since hearing about them on Kirk Tuck’s blog, who I believe has even written a book recently on using lcd panels as a tungsten lighting replacement. The panel you mention seems a little on the pricey side though, compared to the cost of an external flash unit, and think I would plump for the flash in that price range given the flexibility to use it for more than just a little fill.
Thanks for the thoughts though :)
I have a d300 and would not go to this level. Very noticable on the darks. Hire or get flash
Deebo wrote:
I have a d300 and would not go to this level. Very noticable on the darks. Hire or get flash
Yeah, I think after looking at D300 images at iso 3200, useable seems to be the best case scenario to my eye, by my own standards.
Obviously this is a best case scenario and dependent on noise reduction technique, good exposure (so you don’t have to pull detail from the shadows), and shooting RAW I imagine. Also, using Lightroom 3 also, with the much improved noise reduction algorithms can’t do any harm either :)
In any case, I should have a D300 in my hand in the next few days, and looking forward to putting it through its paces..
I’m very late into this one, but I picked up a top tip [many of you may know, many may not] along the way. And put it to use at a gig in the [very dark] Academy early this year.
When shooting at higher ISO levels, such as 1600 – 3200, set your exposure comp anywhere between +0.3 – +1, and/or use slightly slower shutter speeds than normal. It reduces noise significantly. Try it. You’ll be surprised :)
Here’s some examples of simply reducing the shutter speed:
http://www.grayphotograph.com/blog/tuesday-tips-and-tricks-in-camera-noise-reduction/10465/” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
But combined with exp comp, it works even better. So simple, but often overlooked.
I use a D90 btw, here’s one i took at that gig:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cagey75/5479436953/in/set-72157622618274678/” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
And the Exif info:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cagey75/5479436953/meta/in/set-72157622618274678/” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
+2/3 exp comp, ISO 3200, 1/125, f/2.8, manual mode.
Of course there’s still some noise, as the lighting was a bit cat, and a lot of dark area, but much cleaner than it might have been. I actually like a little noise in gig shots :D
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
